Patna High Court
Raju KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The High Court held that bail must be granted to the petitioner as the investigation report exonerated him and no material links him to the offence.
Summary
Raju Kumar applied for bail fearing arrest in a murder case (Sections 302, 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act) where the co‑accused Domi Kumar was alleged to have abducted and killed the informant’s daughter. The petitioner argued that he had no involvement, merely being a former friend of the co‑accused, and that the police investigation concluded with a final report exonerating him. The trial court had nonetheless taken cognizance of the offence based on the FIR, which the petitioner claimed was done without applying mind. The High Court, after considering the police’s final report, the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the absence of any material linking him to the crime, ordered his release on bail subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and additional conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The order emphasizes that bail is appropriate where the prosecution has not produced incriminating evidence against the accused.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate basis for granting bail when the police final report shows no incriminating material against the petitioner?
- Whether the lower court’s cognizance of the offence, based solely on the FIR, was valid in the absence of substantive evidence?
- Whether the petitioner’s prior relationship with the co‑accused can be a ground for continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- cognizance
- murder
- arms act
- IPC
- Section 482
- police report
- fair antecedent
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21070 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2022 Thana- SHANKARPUR District- Madhepura
======================================================
Raju Kumar Son of Ashok Yadav Resident of Village- Naulakhiya, Ward No.
02, P.S.- Madhepura, District- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Md Fazle Karim, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 13-07-2026 Heard Md. Fazle Karim, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2022, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage
of the informant's daughter was solemnized with the co-accused
Domi Kumar @ Avinash Kumar in the year 2011 and the couple
also gave birth to two children. However, they had not been in a
good relationship and on account of illicit relationship of co-
accused Domi Kumar @ Avinash Kumar with another lady, the
daughter of the informant was subjected to torture and forced to
live at her parental home. On 06.11.2022, the husband of
deceased came to his sasural and took away the deceased, Dazy
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21070 of 2026(4) dt.13-07-2026
2/3
Kumari with him by pretending that he would keep her with full
honour and dignity, but subsequently the deceased
telephonically informed the informant, that she was shot dead.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner taking this
Court through the FIR specifically contended that it is admitted
position that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, it is the
co-accused Domi Kumar @ Avinash Kumar, who had taken
away the daughter of the informant and later on, she was shot
dead. The petitioner has no concern with the co-accused or with
the incidence, as only on account of the fact that previously he
happened to be a friend of Domi Kumar @ Avinash Kumar, his
name has been implicated in this case, without there being any
cogent material, showing his complicity in the crime. The police
during the course of investigation has found nothing against the
petitioner and accordingly he has not been sent for trial. To
support the aforesaid contention, final form/report has been
placed on record as Annexure-2 to the application. Differing
with the final report, however, the learned jurisdictional Court
has taken cognizance for the offence as alleged in the FIR. The
said cognizance order is said to be without application of mind
and on misconception that the police has submitted final report
against the petitioner. The petitioner also bears fair antecedent.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21070 of 2026(4) dt.13-07-2026
3/3
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note
of the fact that the police after investigation, submitted final
form showing the petitioner as innocent. Notwithstanding the
fact, the learned jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of the
offence as alleged in the FIR, coupled with the fact that the
entire allegation revolves around co-accused Domi Kumar @
Avinash Kumar, and no material has been collected against the
petitioner, besides his fair antecedent, let the petitioner above
named be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in connection with
Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2022, subject to the conditions
laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, with the further condition that one of the bailors
shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.